30 songs cost student €473,000

Futurism

I'm glad I don't pay for music and I don't think I ever will.

orourkeda

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

He should take up dealing

He should probably take up snorting too.

What a stinger?

Thirdfox

Funny these companies sue for millions in the US...

...but then allow Google to offer mp3 downloads for free in China (a legal service to compete with the top search engine in China - Baidu)

Ghost Train

And next year it'll be the death penalty for these filesharers \o/ just kidding, but they should do some scarey ads about terrorism and file sharing

Run_to_da_hills

Ghost Train wrote: »

And next year it'll be the death penalty for these filesharers \o/ just kidding, but they should do some scarey ads about terrorism and file sharing

New World Order: Counterfeiting supports Global terrorism. :eek:

Jay P

Ah, good ol' record labels, they never cease to astound me with injustice, bad moves and stupidity. They are fighting a losing battle, and they are trying to bring down as many with them as possible. I remember a few years ago I read that legal downloads are worth $1 billion, and illegal downloads are twenty times this. Bands get less than a dollar an album, so album sales won't mean a whole lot to them. As was already mentioned, gigs are where money is properly made. AC/DC won't sell 70,000 of their new album in Irealnd, but that's how many people paid €80 to see them live. They got 25-50% I'd imagine. A lot more than album sales.

RandolphEsq

Tenebaum is quite a Jewish name

Edit: my suspicions were confirmed having checked his photo

Jeanious

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Tenebaum is quite a Jewish name

Edit: my suspicions were confirmed having checked his photo

And what's that got to do with the price of bread illegal filesharing??

RandolphEsq

coyle wrote: »

And what's that got to do with the price of bread illegal filesharing??

The man involved in the case we are talking about is jewish. Just an observation

abelard

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Tenebaum is quite a Jewish name

Edit: my suspicions were confirmed having checked his photo

I see what jew did there.

teddy_303

Screw the record companies I say, They have made too mush for too long, and that's all that is wrong with them. They say the artists are not being paid, but they hardly pay the artists they tell us they are so concerned about. They are an obsolete format, and good riddance to the lot of them. They got enough of my money for long enough. Do they really expect people to feel sorry for them and find a way to keep them around so they can fleece music fans for longer? Screw IMRO too for that matter. They are all about money, not music....

nitrogen

Ghost Train wrote: »

And next year it'll be the death penalty for these filesharers \o/ just kidding, but they should do some scarey ads about terrorism and file sharing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wRxfz_6E7o

crybaby

I download music all of the time but I have stopped trying to justify it with the old "oh those big bastard record companies making all of that money" excuse. Because with music available now at a reasonable price there is no proper excuse anymore.

Just admit we're all being sort of pricks to musicians with our constant downloading of music the odd song here and there isn't too bad. But people downloading any artists entire discography in a day and then not even listening to most of it and then still trying to justify it are simply taking the piss.

EdgarAllenPoo

I used to get music from file sharing software but it can be virus riddled and piss poor quality, had a 3v and started using their site but they're bloody expensive, I now use a site which (at least in one country) has actually won a court case letting it stay in operation, much better quality of music and I'm still paying for the downloads, just not rip off prices.

Gummy Panda

GDM wrote: »

I used to get music from file sharing software but it can be virus riddled and piss poor quality, had a 3v and started using their site but they're bloody expensive, I now use a site which (at least in one country) has actually won a court case letting it stay in operation, much better quality of music and I'm still paying for the downloads, just not rip off prices.

is it a russian site?

blubloblu

Those ridiculously cheap MP3 sites that operate in countries with no copyright laws are pointless. What's the point of spending money if none of it goes to the artist? Either just get it free or buy from somewhere they'll get something.

jester77

I use 7digital and Amazon, lots of albums for around €5 which is great value.

EdgarAllenPoo

Gummy Panda wrote: »

is it a russian site?

Yes.

MagicMarker

jester77 wrote: »

I use 7digital and Amazon, lots of albums for around €5 which is great value.

Free is better value.

SuperDude87

nitrogen wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wRxfz_6E7o

Lol I miss being able to laugh at things SO much!

Thanks to you mad lot on boards I always feel like I'm at home!

Very good lads

Ricky91t

MagicMarker wrote: »

It's retarded, if they're going to throw out those kind of fines then at least go after someone who uploads thousands upon thousands of tracks.

Personally, I don't see any difference between this or taping songs off the radio, or recording movies onto video tape/dvd.

Usually the people who are caught do upload and download thousands!

But they usually just go to court for a few of them so they have a solid case and sold evidence,The women who recently got caught for it,was only sued for a small percentage of what she actually shared IIRC

jester77

MagicMarker wrote: »

Free is better value.

Do you work for free?

Run_to_da_hills

Ricky91t wrote: »

Usually the people who are caught do upload and download thousands!

But they usually just go to court for a few of them so they have a solid case and sold evidence,The women who recently got caught for it,was only sued for a small percentage of what she actually shared IIRC

The ones that get caught are the idiots that use Limewire and the likes but foolishly have their entire MP3 collection exposed on their PC, sometimes unknowingly that it is being destributed through torrent sectors.

If they want to do it right they must have their entire collection disconected on a separate USB external caddy when on line and have some crappy traditional Irish or classic free domain files to share out. That way the spot light is off them.

fryup

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If they want to do it right they must have their entire collection disconected on a separate USB external caddy when on line and have some crappy traditional Irish or classic free domain files to share out. That way the spot light is off them.

but if everyone started doing that the whole p2p network would fall apart

MagicMarker

jester77 wrote: »

Do you work for free?

No, but I'm worth it.

Run_to_da_hills

fryup wrote: »

but if everyone started doing that the whole p2p network would fall apart

We might have a revival of traditional Irish music.

Pygmalion

crybaby wrote: »

But people downloading any artists entire discography in a day and then not even listening to most of it and then still trying to justify it are simply taking the piss.

Why?
It's not like they would've gone out and bought the entire discography if they're not even interested in listening to it, so who loses out?

fryup

but how can they prove that it was you that was downloading

could'nt you just say ...something like....that your "cousin" was using your PC without your knowledge

Pygmalion

fryup wrote: »

but how can they prove that it was you that was downloading

could'nt you just say ...something like....that your "cousin" was using your PC without your knowledge

I'm sure your cousin wouldn't be too happy with that even if it did work.

DamoDLK

fryup wrote: »

but how can they prove that it was you that was downloading

could'nt you just say ...something like....that your "cousin" was using your PC without your knowledge

TBH it wouldn't matter, the owner should know who's doing what on their computer.

Pygmalion

DamoDLK wrote: »

TBH it wouldn't matter, the owner should know who's doing what on their computer.

But people with wireless internet can't know if someone next door is using their internet.
The ISP might not secure it and it would be unreasonable to expect everyone to know how to do it themselves.

Ghost Train

crybaby wrote: »

I download music all of the time but I have stopped trying to justify it with the old "oh those big bastard record companies making all of that money" excuse. Because with music available now at a reasonable price there is no proper excuse anymore.

Just admit we're all being sort of pricks to musicians with our constant downloading of music the odd song here and there isn't too bad. But people downloading any artists entire discography in a day and then not even listening to most of it and then still trying to justify it are simply taking the piss.

don't see why it matters if something is listened to or not, I think the way things have gone has taken some of the control away from the record companies and helped smaller bands get more attention. The internet has changed the way music is listened to and people will share music. Record companies should just accept that and concentrate on getting the music out there and selling what they can, concerts, tv concerts, dvd etc. So theres less money in music, probably still more money there than in other arts like painting, photography etc

it's ridiculous to fine to much.. if i got sued for 100k or 100million, i'd just declare bankrupty. it's just a big number. record company is just wrecking someones life and not even getting any money from them..

grooveshark and the likes are the way forward.. since everything will end up with a permanent cheap connection to the internet, no need to have your own soft copy. i still download music for the ipod but when i'm on laptop, grooveshark and it's autoplay feature all the way. when an iphone with a cheap enough data bundle to let me use the app they're working on comes along, i'll get that instead of my current ipod so bye bye mp3s.

i'll still get all my movies from rapidshare tho :P

bleg

I AM ABOVE THE LAW!

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/4/3/3/43376d8cc9656e3a6829ce88368f80cb.jpg

Jay P

fryup wrote: »

but how can they prove that it was you that was downloading

could'nt you just say ...something like....that your "cousin" was using your PC without your knowledge

It's your computer, so you're supposed to know what people do with your bandwith :rolleyes: Pile of crap it is.

RandolphEsq

I think the old method of recording songs to .mp3 files is the way forward. Record it from one of those sites where you're only allowed to listen to the song. Impossible to trace!

dyl10

So has or will there be plans to target the run of the mill downloader, who isn't uploading?

indough

Mr.S wrote: »

Same thing applies if you say "but someone used my wireless network, i didn't have a password on it", its your responsibility to secure it.

you might actually have a chance of getting away with it on eircom though, afaik the routers they supply you with are protected with wep encryption, which is fairly easy to crack

onq

Jay P wrote: »

It's your computer, so you're supposed to know what people do with your bandwith :rolleyes: Pile of crap it is.

Couple of queries people; -

Is there legislation to that effect in respect of a home user?

There were stories of IIRC "War Diallers" from years ago [on The Register or some other PC related forum] using high-jacked phone lines to connect to the Internet.

More recently there were stories about "War Drivers" - people driving around with Wi-fi-enabled laptops until they found unsecured office LANs or "hotspots".

Surely you cannot be held responsible for the criminal actions of others when you didn't directly aid them or benefit from them personally?

Also I thought that the nature of "open" connections is that someone can use them, but cannot contact your PC/laptop directly.

IOW, they can connect to the Internet and download files to their laptop, but not to your laptop, making them the possessors of the material.

Thus, if they upload it, it is from their laptop, not yours and they have used your system to do it without your permission.

Technically, they have stolen bandwidth from you to do this - you are therefore a victim, not a perpetrator.

FWIW

ONQ.